Latin America

February 26, 2014

If Brazil is not for beginners, as the saying goes, then Venezuela isn't, either. But as far as the two countries' recent protest experiences go, they have a few interesting elements in common.

At first glance, the countries seem quite different: Venezuela is deeply and bitterly politically polarized, with shortages of basic food staples and goods, rising inflation, spiraling crime rates, and what some say is a breakdown of institutions. Venezuela's protests have resulted in the arrest of a high-profile member of the opposition, plus a higher death toll with more reports of brutality from both state security forces and paramilitaries. The demonstrations are openly politicized, as the opposition and government face off in what has been an increasingly tense battle.

But at the heart of the protests in both countries is also a desire for an improved quality of life and a demand for accountability.

As Venezuela marks two weeks of major demonstrations, some observers have drawn contrasts with Brazil. There was, for example, the goverment reaction at a policy level. In Brazil, there was hand-wringing and emergency meetings, carefully scripted, pre-recorded remarks from the president, congressional action, and swift promises for reform. In Venezuela, there was a lot of angry rhetoric blaming everyone from the Americans to the Colombians, as the president danced merengue on national TV, declared a new national holiday to extend the upcoming Carnival break, and sat for an interview involving fun with charts featuring possibly invented statistics. (Tonight, there was a peace conference intended to bring people together for a dialogue, though some members of the opposition refused to go.)

From The New York Times:

"Unlike the protests in neighboring Brazil last year, when the government tried to defuse anger by promising to fix ailing services and make changes to the political system, Mr. Maduro says the protesters are fascists conducting a coup against his government. He has largely refused to acknowledge their complaints, focusing instead on violence linked to the unrest. Here in Táchira State, he says the protests are infiltrated by right-wing Colombian paramilitary groups, and he has threatened to arrest the mayor of San Cristóbal."

But others have found some things in common between the two.

In what is mostly a remarkably balanced op-ed, Brazilian Congressman Jean Wyllys points out that some Brazilians have criticized protesters in their own country, calling them vandals, while at the same time praising Venezuela's demonstrators. Both countries have the right to protest, he says, in spite of the differences in policies or governments, and citizens of both countries have demanded their right to be heard and to get a legitimate response.

"The Venezuelans that are dissatisfied with the situation of the country have the right to protest against the government. Protest isn't a coup--even if some ruling party members say it is, in both Venezuela and Brazil--in fact, it's a fundamental civil right...If thousands of people are in the streets protesting against a government's policies, that shouldn't be considered a mere mistake by the government; first the government should reflect on what could be so wrong as to result in bringing so many to the streets!"

"We even had our own exceptional moment, which was the June protests, in which there was no repression. We live with democracy, we think that those who have democracy will always want more democracy. Those who experience development want more development. And those who have public services want to improve them, expand them, and will want more. So, we're a country that we're happy to say that we've matured when it comes to democracy."

This could also apply to Venezuela, and looking at poll numbers, you'll find similarities. Both countries, for example, are displeased with the way things are going: a recent Gallup survey found that only 44 percent of Brazilians and 40 percent of Venezuelans are happy with their country's direction.

Released this week, a Gallup poll conducted in September and October shows that Venezuelans have grown increasingly pessimistic. Over 60 percent think the economy is getting worse, and around 80 percent don't feel safe walking alone at night. About 33 percent think their standard of living is getting worse--up from only 11 percent a year earlier. Another 33 percent say their standard of living is actually getting better, but that number declined from 54 percent in 2012.

Similarly, Gallup showed in June that 55 percent of Brazilians were dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and 41 percent said the national economy was going poorly. When asked about the country's priorities, 85 percent said law and order was important, but 14 percent said the country could be described as having adequate law and order. A February CNT survey found that 77 percent of Brazilians feel urban violence is getting worse; a National Victimization Survey released in December revealed that half of Brazilians are "very afraid" of becoming a murder victim. And a November Boston Consulting Group poll found that only 31 percent of Brazilians feel that on a personal level, they are financially secure.

So while Venezuela has some extremely complex political issues at play with more serious economic hurdles, there are also basic issues at hand that Brazilians share: the desire to feel safe, to be able to afford things they both want and need, and to feel a sense of advancing in life, rather than backsliding. They both seem to want a better quality of life.

"The people are marching for access to food, for some sense of economic stability," writes Venezuelan-American blogger Veronica Bayetti Flores of Venezuela's protesters. "Lots of them are angry bourgeois; a lot of them also are folks who can’t afford to send maids to stand in line for four hours to get basic staples on their table, folks who have spotty access to electricity and water." But perhaps it was a mother in the Venezuelan city of Valencia who put it simplest. "I don't support any political party," she told Reuters. "I just want to live, to do my shopping and not get killed."

December 15, 2013

When Brazil was chosen for the 2014 World Cup—bringing the games to Latin America for the first time since 1986—it was a victory for fans throughout the football-crazed region. I often find that Brazil holds a special allure for Latin Americans, who dream about traveling to places like Rio and Bahia, and the games represented a new reason to go. Yet even Brazil's neighbors may have trouble making it to the event given the astronomical costs to attend.

Luckily, Brazil's World Cup Law has assured that a certain number of cheap tickets must be sold to Brazilian citizens, specifically students, senior citizens, and Bolsa Família recipients. The least expensive tickets start at R$30, or about $15. It's not clear how many of these tickets have been sold yet; close to two-thirds of all tickets are reserved for sponsors and country teams, and aren't for sale. During the 2010 World Cup, nearly a third of all tickets sold directly to fans were low-cost tickets purchased by South Africans.

But for non-Brazilian Latin Americans without deep pockets, the World Cup may be out of reach.

First off, costs for flights and hotels have spiked during June and July. Some flights are as much as 1,000 percent more expensive, and in some cases, hotels are charging four times the normal rate. Folha reported last month that Match Services, a tourism company associated with FIFA, is charging an average of 24 percent more than what the actual hotels are charging. For example, the company is charging nearly 2,000 percent more for one Rio hostel than the hostel normally charges. Folha also found that of 85 hotels surveyed, nearly half said they had run out of rooms during the games—even though those same rooms were still available through FIFA.

Then, there's the option of buying a package deal. I did a bit of research about what kind of packages are on offer in the Latin American countries that will be represented at the World Cup. What I found were exorbitant prices, being charged in U.S. dollars. (All prices are per person.) I also checked gross income per capita using World Bank data as a comparison, given that some companies are charging the average of a year's salary, or even more.

Argentina: One of the official companies offering World Cup packages has packages starting at around $10,000, including only hotels and transfers, and VIP tickets starting at $3,200. An Argentine football blog found that some Argentines had booked hotels, flights, games, and transportation on their own for between $4,400 and $5,560 for two weeks, and about $2,500 for four to five days. [Argentina's gross national income per capita: $5,170.]

Chile: One tour company is offering packages ranging from around $6,600 to $15,000 for flights, hotels, games, and transfers. [Chile's gross national income per capita: $14,280]

Colombia: Tour companies are offering packages ranging from $11,000 to $33,000 for flights, hotels, games, and transfers. [Colombia's gross national income per capita: $6,990]

Costa Rica: Packages start at $6,000 (without lodging), with the cheapest package including a hotel stay at $10,500; the most expensive package costs up to $22,000. [Costa Rica's gross national income per capita: $8,740]

Ecuador: A local company is offering packages ranging from around $4,400 to over $9,700 for hotels and transfers alone (no flights), and between $800 and $2,000 for game tickets. One report says that the average price for Ecuadorans, with all costs included, is about $12,000. [Ecuador's gross national income per capita: $5,200]

Honduras: One company is charging nearly $17,000 for a complete package, which is the equivalent of nearly half a million lempiras. [Honduras' gross national income per capita: $2,070.]

Mexico: One tour company is offering complete packages that range from nearly $7,600 to over $99,600. Six of the packages include a hostel, rather than a hotel, for lodging. [Mexico's gross national income per capita: $9,600]

Uruguay: Packages from Uruguay start at around $9,000 per person. [Uruguay's gross national income per capita: $13,510]

July 14, 2011

James, known as Boz, is one of the foremost Latin American foreign policy bloggers on the Web. He's an American based in Nicaragua, but he covers the entire region, from daily news stories to more complex policy issues. He's especially interested in transnational crime and security, but he does an excellent job writing about a large variety of topics. He writes Bloggings by Boz, and also has a popular Twitter account for those interested in Latin American news. Boz was kind enough to answer some questions I had, and I'm really excited to feature him here.

You're quite a prolific writer - you've been blogging since 2004 with hundreds of posts a year, and you also freelance. Where else have you been published?

Most of my public writing is on my blog and Twitter feed. I started my blog as an experiment in 2004 and it became a hobby that I really enjoy. With over 3,500 blog posts in seven years and over 7,000 tweets, I'm not sure where it all comes from. I just sit down to write every morning.

In terms of public writing, I contribute to some of the analysis published by Southern Pulse. In the past year I wrote a paper on organized crime in Honduras for the Woodrow Wilson Center and a speech on Arms Trafficking in Central America for the Parliamentary Forum on SALW. I was also excited my paper on botnets and cybersecurity, which I wrote in late 2009, was released publicly by the Conficker Working Group.

My freelance writing and consulting business leads me to do a lot of private memos and analytical reports for clients around the globe. A lot of what I write as part of work is never published publicly, so I'm glad to have an outlet in my blog to post stuff I want to say.

Why Latin America? How did you first become interested in the region, and what do you find fascinating about it?

I'm asked "Why Latin America?" fairly often and I've never been quite sure. I'm part hispanic and have a lot of relatives in Argentina, but I don't think that completely explains why I'm drawn to the region. I took every university course I could on Latin American politics and history and spent a semester abroad in Santiago, Chile. About a year after college, I stumbled into a job as a Latin America analyst with a strategic communications firm. Even though I've also done work related to Asia, the Middle East and Africa as well as US politics, I never enjoy working on those regions as much as I do Latin America.

How is that you came to live in Nicaragua? As someone who covers Latin America and foreign policy, why was it important for you to live there?

I'm actually in Nicaragua because of my wife's job. The flexibility of being a freelancer means I can write from almost anywhere with an internet connection. That said, I'm glad to be living and working in Latin America and appreciate the opportunity to get to know Nicaragua and Central America better. It's been a good experience.

On your blog, you do a daily round up of interesting news stories from the English, Spanish and Portuguese language press. How do you determine what's worth sharing?

I share whatever news articles interest me. My blog is still my hobby, even though I have far more readers today than when I started. Of course, as my interests change over time, so do the articles I share. I've become much more interested in technology, energy and innovation issues in the past year, and I think it shows in what I share. I also have an interest in transnational crime, which I think is the big threat to the region.

You cover the region as a whole but you give Brazil plenty of attention. What do you think is one of the trends most worth watching in Brazil, be it political, economic, social, etc?

I give Brazil attention because Brazil deserves attention. It's a political and economic powerhouse in the region and increasingly in the world. Anyone who does regional analysis and ignores Brazil is missing a big piece of the puzzle.

In terms of trends, I think Brazil's interest in South America as a regional community is incredibly important. They have the opportunity to build up their neighbors and work to everyone's strengths through integration. However, that integration with a South American community also creates some risks for Brazil. In the coming years, Brazil will want stability in their neighborhood, leading to them influence other governments. We see this already with Brazil helping Bolivia and Paraguay do border patrols with UAVs or with their construction contracts in Venezuela and Peru. As Brazil works to maintain stability, help out neighbors, and promote Brazilian multinational businesses, it's going to lead to both good and bad consequences for the image of their country.

How do you think Dilma's administration is going? How do you predict things will play out given the corruption scandals and her beleaguered relationship with Congress?

I think the Rousseff administration is hitting some rocky times as happens any time a party moves to its third term in office, whether with the same person or with a new leader. Her administration has one clear advantage: Brazil has a set of goals it must achieve in the eyes of the world with the upcoming big events. They need to build infrastructure for the World Cup and Olympics. I'm 90% sure that Brazilian politics will pull together, move past their differences, and make it happen on time. Dilma will get the credit when it does.

February 28, 2011

You're probably familiar with TED Talks, but did you know they're now international, with independent events held worldwide? There was recently a TED Talk in Rio (TEDx Rio), and there was another one held last year, also in Rio, called TEDx Sudeste. There have also been talks in São Paulo, Manaus and Porto Alegre. Here are some highlights from both Rio talks.

February 09, 2011

Some will say that the contentious relationship between Brazil and Argentina is all about soccer rivalries. That certainly plays a role - try asking a Brazilian who's the best soccer player of all time, and then ask an Argentine. And even though there's often a begrudging respect for the other country's star players, it's not often admitted. On both sides of the border, there are often mean-spirited jokes and even open hostility in regards to the other country. On the Argentine side, the antagonism sometimes takes a racist tone. But soccer is one of the more obvious components of a very complicated relationship, one that actually goes back hundreds of years and has reached a turning point as Brazil continues to rise and Argentina continues to struggle.

Here's a very brief background on their history. Argentina and Brazil have actually gone to war, both against each other and united. They fought each other in the Cisplatine War from 1825 to 1828. Brazil lost an entire territory it had annexed, which later became the country of Uruguay. But Argentina and Brazil fought together with Uruguay in the War of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay from 1864 to 1870, and won; the death toll in Paraguay was estimated between 300,000 and 525,000. While both economies grew at the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina enjoyed a golden age; in the 1920s, it was the wealthiest country per capita in Latin America and was amongst the top ten wealthiest countries in the world. That changed after the Great Depression, and both countries shared some similar struggles in the following decades, including populist leaders, military dictatorships, debt, and inflation, amongst other things. In 2001, Argentina's economy crashed, and while things have stabilized, the economy still has not quite recovered, while Brazil's economy booms. Despite all this, the stereotypical Argentine "attitude" is that Argentina is still the most superior country in Latin America, and despite economic hardships, they're still the best -- even better than Brazil.

It must be hard then to deal with some very difficult realities in recent months. President Dilma made her first international visit in office to Argentina, which underscores the importance of the two countries' relationship but also of its power parity. Dilma and Cristina Kirchner signed bilateral agreements, including a nuclear agreement and an agreement to build two hydroelectric plants on the border. While both countries do a large amount of trade, Argentina is more dependent on Brazil. Argentina is Brazil's #3 trading partner after China and the US, while Brazil is Argentina's #1 trading partner. Plus, Argentina's trade deficit is large and growing; Brazilian exports are on the rise while Argentine exports are shrinking. Some Argentine sectors are especially dependent on the Brazilian market, like the auto industry, which exports 85 percent of locally-produced cars to Brazil.

But it gets worse - to add insult to injury, Brazil will actually start printing Argentine money. Brazil is expected to create 16 billion pesos for its neighbor this year, as Argentina again fights an old enemy: soaring inflation, which is hurting the country's poorest. And if that wasn't enough, President Obama has decided to skip Argentina during his brief upcoming Latin American tour, his first ever in the region. This has caused quite a stir, as spurned politicians and diplomats called the decision "unfair." In short, Argentina is essentially living in Brazil's shadow, which looms bigger every day.

And there's that final component that will forever drive a wedge between the two countries: culture. So sure, southern Brazil is in many ways similar to parts of Argentina, what with the gauchos and descendants of German and Italian immigrants. There's the mutual love of barbecue and red meat, of soccer and beer, and close-knit families. But you can't underestimate the influence of the original colonizers and how different it has made both cultures, and how their histories have been shaped apart, despite bordering one another. One of the main elements is the lack of African influences in Argentine culture, and the belief that Argentina is far more European than any Latin American country, as well as the racial implications of considering itself one of the region's "whitest" countries. When living in Buenos Aires, I had the sense that while parts of the culture were considered uniquely Argentine, a lot of the culture seemed to be an adoration or imitiation of European culture, while Brazil has such an eclectic mishmash of cultures from all over the world. While Argentina is very culturally insular, Brazil is wide open, like a blank canvas.

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw here, but one thing is for sure: Argentines will have to learn to get along better with Brazilians, and to better understand them. Apparently, the economic and political future of their country depends on it.

June 28, 2010

Back in college, when I had finished my third semester studying international affairs and Latin America, I finally began to understand the United States' relationship with our neighbors to the south and just how much the U.S. government had done to interfere in nearly every country in the hemisphere. More than anything, I was in disbelief that I hadn't learned any of this before, and was disappointed my how little information was available to the American public.

Oliver Stone's new documentary South of the Border could have potentially filled the void to help provide useful information about US-Latin American relations, and a brief history and basic snapshot into political trends in the region. Instead, it is an unabashedly one sided view of the rise of socialism in Latin America and mainly a loving ode to Hugo Chavez, although Stone, who evidently does not speak any Spanish, calls him Sha-VEZ during the entire movie. If that doesn't turn you off, the plot likely will.

Stone interviews several leftist Latin American leaders, though he spends the most time with Chavez. He also interviews President Lula, arguably the most powerful leader in Latin America, but spends the least amount of time with him. He also speaks to both Kirchners in Argentina, as well as the presidents of Cuba, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Bolivia. He completely ignores Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and doesn't so much as mention him or anything related to Central America. He manages to paint a very rosy picture of Chavez as a sweet but determined everyman who is beloved by most in his country, other than the "evil" media and a minor group of opposition.

In between the interviews, Stone devotes a lot of time discussing Chavez's rise to power and recent Venezuelan history, as told by Chavez and his chavistas. There are also some very funny clips from US TV news shows, particularly FOX and CNN, meant to show how uninformed the US mainstream media is about Latin America. Unfortunately, Stone's version of events and complete unwillingness to show interviews with the opposition or even regular citizens in each country lead the viewer to believe that the film isn't terribly different from those silly news broadcasts.

The film's main flaw, other than the blatant bias, is that it spent very little time actually focusing on the structural changes brought about by leftist movements, in particular extending health care, education, and social benefits to those who previously had little access to them. It completely misses the point about why these leftist leaders have become so popular (other than their charming, "likeable" personalities, which is more than evident in the movie). It makes it seem like Chavez's "bravery" and popularity helped spread the movement in Latin America, giving him much more credit than he is due.

One of the other things that bothered me was Stone's attack on the Latin American media, who he blamed for demonizing the leftist rulers in the same vein as the US media. He also refers to human rights as a "buzz word" and mentions it only in reference to "false claims" of human rights abuses in Venezuela as compared to worse abuses in Colombia. Aside from not understanding what human rights are and how tenuous the balance has become between human rights and democracy during political shifts in the region, Stone clearly does not understand the vitality of a free press. He lumps the media together as an overall negative force that is hindering progress in Latin America, rather than recognizing that some media outlets attempt to exercise the right of free speech and try to combat propaganda from other media conglomerates.

It became clearer how out of touch the director and writers were in the panel discussion after the film, when rabid New York socialists had the opportunity to puxar saco and drone on and on without really asking questions (a few people did, though only one person, an Argentine, really questioned Stone's take on events). One person asked about the status of the transition to socialism in the region, and how each country was progressing, and the people on the panel couldn't quite answer. It made me want to laugh, thinking about Brazil or Argentina as a "socialist" country in the Chavez model. In all, I spent a lot of time rolling my eyes, at both the movie and the excitable people in the audience. But in the end, I was mostly just disappointed. Like several other reviews point out, this was a huge missed opportunity.

April 20, 2010

One of my fellow Latin America-philes was kind enough to write a guest post about a huge Colombian drug kingpin bust in Rio. Brazil has become a major transshipment point for cocaine in the Americas, and big time dealers seem to have even lived in Brazil without much of a hassle--until recently. Joint task forces and Federal Police operations have managed to bring not one but two Colombian drug kingpins down in Brazil, the most recent one in one of Rio's most famous playgrounds.

Narco Arrested in Copacabana

One of Colombia’s most wanted drug barons was arrested while leaving his apartment on the afternoon of April 16.

The apartment wasn't a luxurious residence hidden in the hills outside Medellin or Cali. Nor was it a multimillion-dollar apartment in downtown Bogotá.

It was the intersection of Rua Hilário de Gouveia and Avenida Atlantida on Copacabana beach. A joint task force consisting of three different Brazilian anti-crime organizations and collaboration from the United States’ Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) arrested Nestor Ramon Caro Chapparo, aka “Felipe”, in one Rio's most famous neighborhoods. The US Department of State was offering up to US $5 million for Caro Chapparo’s arrest.

It’s the second high-profile bust of a Colombian drug trafficker in one week that occurred outside of Colombia. Ramon Quintero, a suspected leader of the Norte del Valle Cartel, was arrested in a bakery in an upscale neighborhood in northern Quito, Ecuador, on April 13. Like Caro Chapparo, the US State Department was willing to pay up to US $5 million for information leading to Quintero's arrest.

However, unlike Quintero, who was a leader of one of Colombia’s most powerful cartels, authorities believe that Caro Chapparo was largely an independent trafficker, who likely used his connections with the former members of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) to facilitate the transportation of thousands of kilograms of cocaine to the United States, as well as West Africa and Europe via various points along the Brazilian coast.

The timing of Caro Capparo’s arrest occurs within the same week that a Defense Cooperation Agreement between Brasilia and Washington in “defense related matters” and “cooperation in any other military fields that may be of mutual interest to the Parties”.

The arrest of Caro Chapparo highlights Brazil’s relevance as a port of exit for drugs bound for the US and Europe. Caro Chapparo was not the first to fall. In August 2007, Brazilian authorities arrested Juan Carlos Ramirez Abadia, another Norte del Valle leader, in Aldeia da Serra in Greater Sao Paulo. Though the local market, which Veja says is dominated by Bolivian cocaine, exists in Brazil, the presence of internationally wanted suspects such as Caro Chapparo shows that it is Brazil's geographic location, not population, that attracts international drug traffickers.

At the local level, a lethal confrontation between Police and gang members in an attempted bust of a leading trafficker in Vila Alianza on April 20 that left five dead offers a chilling reminder that men like Capo Chapparo are the exception, not the rule, in drug-related arrests and attempted arrests in Brazil.